Sign up for our daily briefing

Make your busy days simpler with Axios AM/PM. Catch up on what's new and why it matters in just 5 minutes.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Denver news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Denver

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Des Moines news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Des Moines

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Minneapolis-St. Paul news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Twin Cities

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Tampa Bay news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Tampa Bay

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Charlotte news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Charlotte

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Anti-abortion protest, 2016. Drew Angerer/Getty

In an age of profound mistrust, few matters stir greater hope, satisfaction and fury among Americans than the Supreme Court and its often-decisive role as the last word across a vast number of divisive issues.

What's happening: Scholars, analysts and observers are struggling to understand the sudden populist challenge to the status quo. So it is odd that little attention has been paid to the court as a primary force in the country's often-apoplectic anger.

In a remarkable series of cases spanning more than six decades, the court and other federal judicial bodies have fundamentally altered how we speak to each other, how we vote and elect our leaders, and how we stay safe. They also may have helped to deepen political polarization.

  • In the most recent substantial case, the justices last month prohibited legal challenges to partisan gerrymandering. Critics say the decision may lead to a free-for-all in which parties in power will disenfranchise thousands of voters by drawing congressional district lines to favor themselves.
  • "It's not individual cases but this role of the Supreme Court in American life that contributes to polarization. It decides so many questions. It's become a political hotbed," said Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA.
  • "The Supreme Court has changed society. It's changed freedom of religion, of speech, abortion, criminal justice, property rights," said Ilya Somin, a leading libertarian law professor at George Mason University.

One marker for the court's modern, transformational age is Brown vs. Board of Education, which in 1954 upended racial segregation in schools, and over the subsequent decades roiled American society. The decision came under Chief Justice Earl Warren, who championed an activist court that sought to correct societal flaws that it said otherwise were going untended.

But the last three decades have been a court counter-revolution: Warren and his successor, Chief Justice Warren Burger, rankled conservatives, said Winkler. As president, Richard Nixon vilified court decisions expanding the rights of prisoners, and Ronald Reagan vowed to appoint only justices who would overturn Roe vs. Wade, which legalized abortion.

  • Over the last decade, the court — with an originalist tilt favoring a strict reading of the constitution — has broadened the right to own guns (2008), opened up the campaign funding spigot from corporations (2010), and invalidated part of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act (2013).
  • These cases and those before helped to shape the political surroundings in which the topsy-turvy half-century of politics have occurred, culminating in today's popular distrust of institutions and rejection of experts.

While the court has both fed and stoked political anger, constitutional law experts said the sources of polarization are many, and that it is difficult to pick out any one reason for the divided country.

  • "If you ask me, Fox News has had a greater effect on polarization than the Supreme Court," said Winkler, the UCLA professor.
  • Yet, it was an administrative law body — the Federal Communications Commission — that opened the way for hyper-partisan news. In 1987, the FCC overturned the Fairness Doctrine, lifting the requirement for TV news shows to be balanced, says Michael Gerhardt, a professor at the University of North Carolina.

What's next: The court is poised to drop some political bombshells in the 2020 election campaign, writes Axios' Sam Baker. At the top of its list may be abortion, guns and immigration — among the most inflammatory issues in the country.

Go deeper

Schumer's m(aj)ority checklist

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. Photo: Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

Capitalizing on the Georgia runoffs, achieving a 50-50 Senate and launching an impeachment trial are weighty to-dos for getting Joe Biden's administration up and running on Day One.

What to watch: A blend of ceremonies, hearings and legal timelines will come into play on Tuesday and Wednesday so Chuck Schumer can actually claim the Senate majority and propel the new president's agenda.

The dark new reality in Congress

National Guard troops keep watch at security fencing. Photo: Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

This is how bad things are for elected officials and others working in a post-insurrection Congress:

  • Rep. Norma Torres (D-Calif.) said she had a panic attack while grocery shopping back home.
  • Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said police may also have to be at his constituent meetings.
  • Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) told a podcaster he brought a gun to his office on Capitol Hill on Jan. 6 because he anticipated trouble with the proceedings that day.
Off the Rails

Episode 3: Descent into madness ... Trump: "Sometimes you need a little crazy"

Photo illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios. Photos: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Beginning on election night 2020 and continuing through his final days in office, Donald Trump unraveled and dragged America with him, to the point that his followers sacked the U.S. Capitol with two weeks left in his term. This Axios series takes you inside the collapse of a president.

Episode 3: The conspiracy goes too far. Trump's outside lawyers plot to seize voting machines and spin theories about communists, spies and computer software.

President Trump was sitting in the Oval Office one day in late November when a call came in from lawyer Sidney Powell. "Ugh, Sidney," he told the staff in the room before he picked up. "She's getting a little crazy, isn't she? She's really gotta tone it down. No one believes this stuff. It's just too much."

You’ve caught up. Now what?

Sign up for Mike Allen’s daily Axios AM and PM newsletters to get smarter, faster on the news that matters.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!